Date: February 12th, 2018 6:03 PMAuthor: US Embassy In Jerusalem, Under Budg, Ahead of Sked (*)

talking american law, a written agreement is almost never needed (i.e., outside the statute of fraudlies). how could you possibly say that a contract is unenforceable bc the parties would have put it in writing if they cared enough?

Date: February 12th, 2018 6:11 PMAuthor: US Embassy In Jerusalem, Under Budg, Ahead of Sked (*)

should they be understood as such? i'd disagree that they even are understood as such.

growing up, we never had any kind of contract or policy with our tennis coaches, but it was understood that if we bailed on them at the last minute because we were sick, my parents would have to pay them.

If Shlomo said "ok I'll drive you but since it's within 24 hours I'm gonna need to charge you the full fare in advance, nonrefundable if you cancel" and Moeisha agreed then that would be the deal. No cancellation penalty = Moeisha don't owe SHIT

I think I have this one. Not even an executory contract. Moishe’s bro would have been on the hook for the ride, no consideration, illusory promises all around. Similarly, if Schlomo failed to appear at the airport, Moishe and his bro would have had no remedy against Schlomo.

You think a promise is illusory if the contract is not executory? That's not the law. If you want to keep talking about executory contracts or the lack thereof, you're going to need to be clearer, because I can't make any sense of your argument.

And whether S could have found another fare isn't a contract formation issue. That's a mitigation of damages defense.

Date: February 14th, 2018 2:07 PMAuthor: US Embassy In Jerusalem, Under Budg, Ahead of Sked (*)

RULING: nobody got it perfectly but facemo was closest. the CR is that the damages are shlomo's lost profits LESS a the reasonable value of him not having to do the work.

facemo is right that there's no way he's entitled to the full $40 -- that would render him a huge surplus. you need to deduct for gas/tolls and wear & tear.

and even then, he's not entitled to the full amount of the lost profits because he got the morning off, and the talmud says that a jew's labor over his leisure is compensable. (he does have a duty to mitigate, and he clearly did attempt to mitigate by calling didi back.)

it's tricky and case specific to calculate what having the time off is worth, but rabbinic courts generally use something around 50% as a good benchmark.

so, if the fare is $40 and the lost profit is less $10 in gas etc, for $30.... then moishe probably owes shlomo around $15 not $30 because shlomo didnt have to do the work.

one may argue that this is absurd, because shlomo needs the $30 to pay his bills etc and he'd rather have done the job for $30 than do nothing and collect $15. but the response is that there's always a price someone's willing to accept to not to have to do work. it might not be $15. maybe it's $25? but there's certainly a point where any taxi driver would rather sit on his ass and make say $29 than do work for $30.

and yes, the contract is fully enforceable with consideration. the subthreads saying it's not are retarded.

Date: February 14th, 2018 6:01 PMAuthor: US Embassy In Jerusalem, Under Budg, Ahead of Sked (*)

i actually argued that the custom is likely that there is no cancellation fee. taxi services are in the business of people cancelling at the last minute -- flights get delayed, cancelled, etc. it's the nature of the assignment.